UC-NRLF 


SB    273    fiflE 


GIFT  OF 

Class   of  1900 


TRUTH   ABOUT 
SOCIALISM 


JAMES  B.  OSBORNE 


COPYRIGHTED.    1812 
JAMES   B.    OSBORNE.    OAKLAND,    Ci 


H    E 


TRUTH   ABOUT 
SOCIALISM 


Jin   Analysis  of  the  Philosophy  Enunciated  in 

the  ^Declaration  ofj4merican  Independence, 

as  Compared  with  the  Philosophy 

of   Social -Democracy 


JAMES  3-  OSBORNE 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  PRESS 

OAKLAND.  CAL. 

1912 


- 


.'   •••     •.••  • 


PREFACE 


The  purpose  of  this  little  pamphlet  is  to  remove  the  objection  now 
in  the  minds  of  millions  of  people  toward  Socialism  on  the  ground  that 
Socialism  is  un-American. 

Socialism  is  not  incompatible  with  Americanism  when  Americanism 
is  measured  by  the  standard  of  the  American  Revolutionists.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Socialists  are  the  only  defenders  in  America  to-day  of  that 
spirit  in  which  this  nation  was  born. 

This  pamphlet  does  not  deal  in  any  way  whatsoever  with  the  under- 
lying economic  causes  of  the  American  Revolution.  Anyone  desiring 
to  take  up  this  phase  of  the  subject  will  be  amply  repaid  by  reading 
"Stcia/  forces  in  American  History,"  by  A.  M.  Simons. 

JAMES  B.  OSBORNE 

June  10,  1912.  Rice  Institute-,  O.kUnd,  Cal. 


THE  DECLARATION  OF 
INDEPENDENCE 

In    Congress,    July   4t  1776. 
The  Unanimous  Declaration  of  the  Thirteen  States  of  America. 

When,  in  the  course  of  human  events,  it  becomes  necessary  for  one 
people  to  dissolve  the  political  bands  which  have  connected  them  with 
another,  and  to  assure,  among  the  powers  of  the  earth,  the  separate  and 
equal  station  to  which  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nature's  God  entitle 
them,  a  decent  respect  for  the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they 
should  declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  separation. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident;  that  all  men  are  created 
equal;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable 
rights;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 
That  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  de- 
riving their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed;  that  whenever 
any  form  of  government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right 
of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government, 
laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers  in 
such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and 
happiness.  Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate  that  governments  long  estab- 
lished, should  not  be  changed  for  light  and  transient  causes ;  and.  accord- 
ingly, all  experience  hath  shown,  that  mankind  are  more  disposed  to  suf- 
fer, while  evils  are  sufferable,  than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the 
forms  to  which  they  are  accustomed.  But,  when  a  long  train  of  abuses 
and  usurpations,  pursuing  invariably  the  same  object,  evinces  a  design  to 
reduce  them  under  absolute  despotism,  it  is  their  right — it  is  their  duty — 
to  throw  off  such  government,  and  to  provide  new  guards  for  their  future 
security.  Such  has  been  the  patient  sufferance  of  these  colonies;  and 
such  is  now  the  necessity  which  constrains  them  to  alter  their  former 
systems  of  government 


INTRODUCTORY  PARAGRAPH 

For  many  generations  the  Old  World  has  looked  to  the 
United  States  with  this  question  on  all  liberty-loving  lips:  "What  is 
Americanism?" 


Chapter  I. 

AMERICANISM 

The  best  interpretation  of  Amii&illlti  was  sxp'essed  in  the  tidal 
wave  of  democracy  which  s\yept  the  colonies,  j'jst  prior  to  and  during 
the  American  Revolution,  resultijig  iji  the  lx> -de st  ( < \.icl  most  sweeping 
declaration  of  human  rights  and  the  highest  ideals  of  popular  govern- 
ment ever  before  proclaimed  by  any  nation  or  any  people. 

Shortly  after  the  American  Revolution  Dr.  Benjamin  Fanklin  was 
dining  with  a  distinguished  Englishman  and  a  well  known  Frenchman. 
It  was  proposed  that  each  give  a  toast  to  his  respective  country.  The 
Englishman  spoke  first:  "Here's  to  Great  Britain,  the  sun  that  gives 
light  to  all  nations  of  the  earth."  The  Frenchman  responded:  "And  J. 
toast  France,  ze  moon  that  shines  over  half  ze  world  where  ze  sun  is  not 
and  whose  magic  rays  move  ze  tides  of  all  ze  shores."  Dr.  Franklin 
added:  "Here's  to  George  Washington,  the  Joshua  of  America,  who 
commanded  the  sun  and  moon  to  stand  still,  and  they  stood  still." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  Mr.  Edmund  Randolph,  secretary 
to  Mr.  Washington  during  the  War  of  the  Revolution,  said  that  "the 
pen  of  Thomas  Paine  was  a  greater  power  to  the  Revolution  than  the 
s%vord  of  Mr.  Washington."  (Conway's  Life  and  Writings  •/  Thomas 
Paine.)  Thomas  Paine  produced  mo'-t  of  the  revolutionary  literature 
during  the  period  preceding  the  Revolution  and  no  publication  ever  be- 
fore had  such  widespread  circulation  or  such  effect  upon  the  public  mind. 
Five  hundred  thousand  copies  of  "Common  Sense"  alone  were  printed 
and  distributed  among  the  colonists.  The  idea  was  common  among 
the  American  Revolutionists  that  their  action  in  establishing  independ- 
ence for  the  colonies  would  be  a  blow  against  slavery,  monarchy,  aris- 
tocracy and  privileged  classes  in  all  countries.  They  confidently  ex- 
pected that  their  example  of  revolt  would  point  the  path  of  power  to  the 
oppressed  and  struggling  people  of  all  nations  of  tie  world.  And  it 
is  evident  thaf  the  influence  pf  the  /Vneric^n  Revolution  in  proclaiming 


8  AMERICANISM 


and  promulgating  the  doctrine  of  democracy  was  felt  all  over  the  world, 
and  profoundly  so  in  France  and  England. 

This  idea  is  very  forcibly  expressed  by  Thomas  Paine  in  "Common 
Sense"  as  follows:  "It  is  not  the  concern  of  a  day,  a  year,  or  an  age. 
Posterity  is  virtually  involved  in  the  contest  and  will  be  more  or  less  af- 
fected, even  to  the  end  of  time,  by  these  proceedings.  Now  is  the  Seed 
time  of  continental  union,  faith  and  honor.  The  least  fracture  now 
will  be  like  a  name  engraved  with  the  point  of  a  pin  on  the  tender  rind 
of  a  young  oak ;  the  wound  will  enlarge  with  the  tree,  and  posterity  will 
read  it  in  full  grown  characters."  Thomas  Paine  was  the  first  man  in 
America  to  advocate  the  abolition  of  chattel  slavery,  who  at  the  same 
time  proposed  a  plan  for  the  solution  of  the  slave  problem.  He  not 
only  advocated  the  abolition  of  chattel  slavery,  but  advocated  justice  to 
woman  in  such  an  able  manner  that  his  arguments  are  today  unanswerable 
by  all  of  the  opponents  of  ecjual  suffrage.  "Common  Sense"  by 
Thomas  Paine  v.'as  translated  into  many  foreign  languages  and  even  more 
copies  were  sold,  in  Francs  and  England  than  in  the  American  colonies. 
His  fearless  philosophy  had  tremendous  influence  from  New  England 
to  the  Carolina?  in  moulding  the  opinions  of  patriots  and  awakening  the 
social  consciousness  of  the  colonists.  Washington  placed  Paine's 
"sound  doctrine  and  unanswerable  reasoning"  on  a  level  of  importance 
with  the  "flaring  arguments"  which  went  up  from  the  burning  houses  of 
Falmouth  and  Norfolk.  "My  countrymen"  he  wrote  "will  come 
reluctantly  into  the  idea  of  Independence,  but  time  and  persecution 
bring  wonderful  things  to  pass  and  by  letters  which  I  have  lately  received 
from  Virginia,  I  find  Common  Sense  is  working  a  powerful  change  in 
the  minds  of  many."  (From  George  Travillon's  History  of  the  Amer- 
ican Revolution.)  Undoubtedly  the  writings  of  Thomas  Paine  and 
his  familiar  acquaintance  with  Jefferson  had  considerable  influence  on 
the  boldness  of  style  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  written  by 
Jefferson,  but  neither  Paine  nor  Jefferson  cared  for  credit  or  reward  for 
their  contributions  to  American  Independence,  and  Jefferson  showed 
that  he  was  conscious  of  the  fact  that  intelligence  was  social  rather  than 
individual  in  its  nature,  as  will  be  seen  by  his  reply  to  a  criticism  by 
John  Adam*.  "The  stock  charge  against  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence— repeated  in  a  hundred  shapes  ever  since  it  appeared  in 
print — had  been  that  it  lacked  originality,  and  that  its  author  was  a 
plagiarist.  It  was  imitated,  so  we  are  informed,  from  the  state  papers  of 
the  Long  parliament;  it  owed  much  to  Locke,  and  much  to  Milton,  and 
still  more  to  Rousseau.  More  recent  sources  on  which  Jefferson  had 
largely  drawn  were  detected  in  a  charge  delivered  to  the  Grand  Jury  of 
Charlestown  in  .the  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights.  .  Jo|in  Adams., 
great  at  great  moments,  but  with  a-  mind  too  Active  and  uneasy  for  the 


AMERICANISM 


prolonged  leisure  of  his  latter  days,  six  and  forty  years  afterwards  ex- 
plained to  a  correspondent  that  there  was  nothing  new  in  Jefferson's 
paper.  Jefferson  lived  to  see  the  letter  of  his  colleague  and  his  re- 
marks on  it  were  as  sensible  as  they  were  good  tempered  and  dignified. 
"I  did  not,"  he  said,  "consider  it  any  part  of  my  charge  to  invent  new 
ideas  and  to  offer  no  sentiment  which  had  ever  been  expressed  before." 
Had  Mr.  Adams  been  so  restrained,  congress  would  have  lost  the  bene- 
fit of  his  bold  and  impressive  advocations  of  the  rights  of  the  Revolution. 
For  no  man's  fervid  addresses  more  than  his,  encouraged  and  supported 
us  through  the  difficulties  which,  like  the  ceaseless  action  of  gravity, 
weighed  on  us  by  night  and  by  day.  Yet,  on  the  same  ground,  we 
may  ask  which  of  his  elevated  thoughts  were  new,  or  can  be  affirmed 
never  before  to  have  entered  the  conceptions  of  man." 

The  American  Revolutionists  not  only  stood  for  the  right  of  self- 
government  for  themselves,  but  for  all  men  regardless  of  race  and  color. 
Whatever  might  have  been  the  motive  of  some  individuals  participating 
in  the  American  Revolution,  it  is  unquestionably  true  that  the  majority 
of  the  American  people  were  not  only  opposed  alike  to  monarchy  and 
slavery,  but  gave  their  approval  gladly  and  enthusiastically  to  the  social 
philosophy  and  democatic  principle*  contained  in  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence. 

The  material  conditions,  that  is  the  economic  and  intellectual  de- 
velopment of  the  American  people  in  1776,  did  not  make  possible  the 
realization  of  the  ideals  of  democracy  held  by  the  founders  of  the  gov- 
ernment, but  many  people  in  America  and  all  over  the  world  have  since 
that  time  joined  in  the  march  of  humanity  toward  democracy,  and  the 
economic  and  intellectual  developments  of  the  last  century  have  prepared 
a  material  condition  for  the  disappearance  of  privileged  classes  and  the 
apearance  of  social  democracy.  Dr.  Witherspoon,  a  delegate  from 
New  Jersey  in  the  continental  congress,  said,  that  in  his  judgment  "the 
country  was  not  only  ripe  for  Independence,  but  was  in  danger  of  be- 
coming rotten  for  want  of  it."  So  it  may  be  said  to-day,  that  this 
country  is  not  only  ripe  for  Socialism,  but  is  even  becoming  rotten  for 
want  of  it. 

The  philosophies  contained  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  are 
the  best  expression  of  Americanism.  It  is  what  the  people  of  1  776  be- 
lieved in.  It  is  what  they  fought  for;  it  is  what  they  thought  they  were 
leaving  as  a  heritage  to  posterity  and  to  the  struggling  peoples  of  the 
world.  The  original  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  pre- 
pared by  Thomas  Jefferson  and  submitted  to  the  Independence  Conven- 
tion contained  a  clause  in  opposition  to  chattel  slavery,  and  a  denun- 
ciation of  the  English  king  for  fostering  and  protecting  the  slave  traffic, 
and  for  vetoing  bills  passed  by  the  colonists  to  prohibit  said  traffic.  This 


10  AMERICANISM 


clause,  left  out  of  the  original  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
can  be  found  in  Woodrow  Wilson's  History  of  the  American  People, 
Vol.  2,  page  246,  an~  Conway's  Life  and  Writings  of  Thomas  Paine, 
Vol.  1 ,  page  80.  While  this  clause  was  not  adopted  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  it  is  certain  that  many  of  the  influential  men  of  the 
convention  were  in  sympathy  with  it,  and  perhaps  took  it  for  granted 
that  the  abolition  of  slavery  would  follow  as  a  natural  consequence  of 
American  Independence. 

Abraham  Lincoln  was  fully  aware  of  the  attitude  of  the  American 
Revolutionists  on  the  slavery  question,  and  in  an  address  on  John  Brown 
delivered  in  Cooper  Institute  New  York,  Feb.  27,  1860,  and  to  a  de- 
gree in  defense  of  John  Brown's  principles,  but  not  his  tactics,  said: 
"True,  we  do.  in  common  with  our  fathers,  who  framed  the  govern- 
ment under  which  we  live,  declare  our  belief  that  slavery  is  wong." 

The  Socialists  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  in  other  countries, 
adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  These 
philosophies  are — first,  freedom  and  equality;  second,  the  only  purpose 
of  government  is  to  st-cure  life,  liberty  and  happiness;  third,  that  all  just 
powers  of  government  not  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  governed  are 
unjust  powers;  fourth,  the  right  of  revolution  when  any  form  of  govern- 
ment becomes  destructive  of  these  principles. 

Each  of  these  philosophies  will  be  treated  in  the  following  chapters. 


CHAPTER    II. 

EQUALITY 

The  very  first  doctrine  in  the  Declaration  of  American  In- 
dependence proclaims  the  equality  of  all  mankind.  Freedom 
and  equality  are  the  essential  fundamentals  of  democracy.  It  became 
necessary  for  the  American  Revolutionists  as  promoters  of  the  demo- 
cratic idea,  and  opponents  of  the  divine  right  of  kings,  to  give  some 
reason,  some  explanation,  in  justification  of  their  revolutionary  course. 

Up  to  the  time  of  th*  American  Revolution,  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  right  of  kings  prevailed  throughout  the  nations  of  the  world.  The 
following  quotation  from  the  speech  of  an  English  king  conveys  some 
idea  of  that  doctrine:  "That  which  concerns  the  mystey  of  the  king's 
power  is  not  lawful  to  be  disputed;  for  that  is  to  wade  into  the  weak- 
nesses of  princes,  and  to  take  away  the  mystical  reverence  that  belongs 
unto  them  that  sit  on  the  throne  of  God."  (James  I.  in  a  speech  made 


EQUALITY  1 1 


in  the  star  chamber  on  June  20,  1601.  Quoted  from  Lee's  Source 
Book  of  English  //isforp,  page  336.) 

The  argument  or  philosophy  used  in  justification  of  the  divine  right 
of  kings  is  an  assumption  that  some  people  are  by  nature  superior  to 
others;  that  some  have  innately  superior  talents  or  excellence,  and  that 
an  all-wise  Povidence,  on  account  of  the  superior  mind  or  ability  of  a 
certain  individual,  selects  him  to  be  king,  and  to  rule  over  the  rest  of 
the  people;  and  on  account  of  the  inferiority  of  the  great  mass  of  man- 
kind, they  become  subjects  of  the  king.  This  doctrine  the  American 
Revolutionists  refused  to  accept,  and  proclaimed  in  the  most  sweeping 
terms  the  freedom  and  equality  of  all  mankind. 

There  are  but  few  in  America  to-day  who  would  acknowledge 
lhat  they  believed  in  the  divine  right  of  kings  to  rule,  and  yet  it  is  aston- 
ishing the  great  influence  this  doctrine  has,  even  at  the  present  time,  upon 
our  political  organization. 

The  argument  used  to-day  in  justification  of  the  ownership  of  colos- 
sal wealth  by  a  few  individuals  is  exactly  the  same  in  essence  as  the 
argument  in  times  past  and  present  in  defense  of  the  divine  right  of  kings. 

A  few  years  ago,  during  a  great  coal  strike  in  Pennsylvania,  and  at 
a  time  a  coal  famine  ?eemed  probable,  propositions  were  made  by  the 
government  looking  to  government  interference,  and.  if  necessary,  govern- 
ment operation  of  the  mine*.  At  this  juncture.  Mr.  Baer,  representing 
the  coal  barons,  came  to  the  rescue,  and  publicly  proclaimed  that  on  ac- 
count of  his  superior  fitness  and  intelligence,  that  God  Almighty  had 
made  him  custodian  of  all  the  coal  fields  in  the  anthracite  region. 

The  ordinary  defender  of  class  ownership  of  the  material  resources 
of  social  wealth  production  is  seldom  as  bold  or  frank  as  the  railway 
magnate,  Mr.  Baer.  Nevertheless,  in  a  final  anaylsis  the  argument 
must,  by  the  very  nature  of  things,  be  based  on  the  same  philosophy,  a 
dualist  philosophy,  out  of  which  can  be  deduced  the  proposition  that 
some  m<»n  arc  by  nature  superior  to  other  men,  with  greater  minds  and 
excellence,  and,  therefore,  entitled  to  greater  recognition  and  greater 
compensation  than  the  great  mass  of  mankind  who,  by  nature,  are  inferior. 
Hence  this  philosophy  of  tne  divine  right  of  kings  used  in  1  776  in  defense 
of  King  George  has  become  the  only  philosophy  used  in  defense  of  mod- 
rrn  capitalism. 

The  Declaration  of  American  Independence  proclaimed  a  denial  of 
ihis  philosophy  of  the  innate  superiority  of  some  and  the  innate  inferiority 
of  others,  and  proclaimed  the  monistic  and  democratic  philosophy  of  the 
ftqualify  of  all  mankind.  The  doctrine  of  equality,  however,  was  a 
new  doctrine,  based  on  a  new  philosophy,  a  revolutionary  philosophy,  and 
ftaa  not  yet  been  thoroughly  absorbed  by  thp  American  people  nor  by  any 


12  EQUALITY 


other  people.  Nevertheless,  just  in  proportion  as  we  march  toward  de- 
mocracy, we  must  accept  and  apply  the  doctrine  of  equality. 

The  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  kings  applies  to  the  nobility,  the 
aristocracy  and  the  ruling  class  in  all  countries  of  the  past.  Mankind 
has  been  taught  for  centuries  and  in  all  countries,  the  doctrine  of  supeior- 
ity  and  inferiority  among  men.  Perhaps  no  country  has  longer  or  with 
greater  effect  taught  this  doctrine  than  has  the  Empire  of  China.  The 
Chinese  have  been  taught  for  centuries  that  they  were  a  superior  people, 
that  the  humblest  Chinaman  was  superior  to  persons  of  other  nationalities 
simply  by  virtue  of  being  a  Chinaman,  so  the  Chinese  call  themselves 
"Celestials." 

In  England,  the  people  have  been  taught  that  England  is  the  great- 
est country  in  the  world,  and  that  Englishmen  have  greater  excellence 
than  any  other  people.  In  America  we  have  been  taught  the  same 
doctrine,  that  Americans  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  they  were  born  in  the 
United  States,  makes  them  superior  to  all  other  people.  Here  in 
California  we  even  claim  that  a  native  son  or  daughter  has  some  distin- 
guishing characteristic5  of  superiority  over  people  born  in  other  states 

This  doctrine  of  the  ruling  class  is  the  only  bulwark  in  defense  of 
class  rule,  and  is  the  foundation  for  modern  jingoism  and  false  patriotism. 
If  the  people  of  China  accept  the  doctrine  of  their  superiority  over  the 
rest  of  mankind,  it  then  becomes  easy  for  them  to  accept  the  rule  of  the 
so-called  superior  class  over  the  great  majority.  This  is  equally  true 
of  every  other  great  nation.  If  we  accept  the  doctrine  in  America 
that  Americans  are  superior  to  all  other  people,  then  the  next  step  in  har- 
mony with  the  same  view  point  is  the  acceptance  of  the  doctine  that 
some  Americans  are  superior  to  others,  and  on  account  of  their  superiority 
are  entitled  to  greater  recognition  and  compensation. 

Every  apologist,  defender  or  retainer  of  the  capitalist  class  defends 
capitalist  class  ownership  of  the  wealth  of  this  nation  on  the  one  ground 
of  ih«?  superiority  of  the  capitalist  class  over  all  other  classes.  Ask 
any  of  them  if  they  believe  that  Mr.  Morgan,  Mr.  Carnegie  and  Mr. 
Rockefeller  are  entitled  to  the  great  wealth  they  own?  Any  one  of  them 
will  answer,  "Yes."  Then  if  yon  ask  on  what  ground,  the  answer 
will  be  "on  account  of  their  superior  minds,  their  greater  excellence." 
In  other  words,  a  billionaire's  wealth  is  just  compensation  for  his  superior 
mind,  and  that  the  poverty  of  the  great  mass  of  people  is  on  account  of 
their  inferior  brain  power. 

Notwithstanding  this  doctrine  was  denounced  by  the  founders  of 
this  republic,  it  is  astonishing  the  influence  that  it  still  has  in  the  minds 
of  the  people.  It  has  been  taught  for  centuries;  it  is  taught  to-day  in 
the  schools,  in  the  churches,  in  the  newspapers,  on  public  platforms,  and 
is  still  the  psychological  foundation  for  class  rule.  Children  are  being 


EQUALITY  13 


aught  to  get  an  education  so  that  they  will  have  an  advantage  over  the 
meducated  and  receive  greater  compensation  than  their  less  fortunate 
ellows.  It  is  generally  accepted  today  that  the  professional  or  edu- 
:ated  classes  are  entitled  to  greater  compensation  for  their  services  than 
he  ordinary  laborer.  It  is  urged  that  on  account  of  their  education 
md  professional  training  they  are  superior,  and  their  services  to  society  of 
;reater  value  than  the  services  of  those  following  so-called  menial  occu- 
pations. This  is  as  much  of  a  fallacy  as  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
ight  of  kings,  and  springs  from  identically  the  same  foundation.  The 
act  is  that  wealth  is  a  social  and  not  an  individual  product.  Likewise, 
ye.  can.  only  value  service  from  a  social  rather  than  an  individual  view- 
*>Jnt 

If  we  hire  a  doctor,  we  think  fifty  dollars  a  day  a  reasonable  price, 
f  -we  hire  a  sewer  digger,  we  think  three  dollars  a  day  exorbitant ;  and  yet 
f  the  people  of  any  community  had  to  decide  by  popular  vote,  this 
luestion;  shall  we  get  along  without  sewer  diggers,  sewers  and  sanitary 
onditions  and  retain  our  physicians,  or  will  we  dispense  with  physicians 
ind  retain  the  sewer  diggers  and  sanitary  conditions,  the  vote  would  be 
Jmost  unanimous  to  retain  the  sewer  digger.  Fortunately,  we  do  not 
iave  to  -decide  that  question,  but  since  both  the  physician  and  the  sewer 
ligger  are  socially  useful,  who  can  determine  who  should  receive  the 
jeater  compensation?  Herein  lies  the  argument  for  economic  equality, 
without  which,  equality  of  opportunity  is  a  meaningless  phrase.  Wealth 
5  a  social  product ;  education  is  social  in  its  origin  as  well  as  in  develop-, 
lent.  Thomas  Jefferson  evidently  understood  this  argument  in  relation 
D  education.  He  was  criticized  in  the  production  of  the  Declaration 
f  Independence,  as  has  been  noted  in  a  previous  chapter.  But  his  an-: 
wer  to  the  criticism  of  John  Adams,  that  there  was  nothing  new  or 
riginal  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  worth  reading  again 
i  connection  with  the  argument  for  equality,  as  it  answers  all  of  the 
rguments  that  can  be  made  in  favor  of  greater  compensation  pn  the 
round  of  greater  or  superior  education.  Mr.  Jefferson  took  the  position 
hat  if  Mr.  Adams,  or  any  other  man,  had  to  use  only  ideas,  thoughts 
r  intelligence,  entirely  his  own,  his  service  to  society  would  be  exceed- 
igly  limited.  Emerson  says  in  his  Essay  on  History,  "There  is  one 
lind  common  to  all  individual  men.  Every  man  is  an  inlet  to  the  same 
ind  to  all  of  the  same." 

To-day,  in  the  United  States,  for  every  man  or  woman  that  goes 
firough-a  university,  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  men  and  women  have 
a  stand  aside  to  make  the  higher  education  possible  for  the  one,  and 
nder  modern  conditions  the  one  has  an  advantage  over  the  nine  hundred 
nd  ninety-nine  that  made  the  advantage  possible.  It  is  easy  to  see  that 
F  the  -ftnfir«  thousand  could  have  Kad  the  university  education,  the  a^-« . 


14  EQUALITY 


vantage  of  the  one  would  not  have  arisen.  If  all  the  people  had  an 
equal  opportunity  to  all  the  education  society  could  afford,  this  question 
would  solve  itself.  So,  every  approach  toward  economic  equality  is  an 
approach  toward  intellectual  democracy. 

The  argument  for  human  equality  is  not  an  argument  against  hu- 
man differentiation.  Differentiation  seems  to  be  a  universal  law.  No 
two  leaves  of  the  forest,  so  we  are  told,  are  just  equal,  or  no  two  blades 
of  grass  just  exactly  the  same  length  or  color,  and  it  is  well  for  mankind 
that  we  have  so  much  differentiation  in  nature.  And  it  is  well  that  we 
have  so  much  human  differentiation.  We  could  not  all  very  well  make  a 
living  by  playing  a  violin,  or  piano;  yet  we  greatly  appreciate  the  talents 
and  excellence  of  a  good  musician.  We  could  not  all  make  a  Irving  as 
orators,  yet  we  are  aroused  and  swayed  and  made  to  deeply  appreciate 
thr  great  orator.  We  need  all  talents  of  all  varieties,  and  we  should  be 
thankful  foi  each  variety  or  gradation  of  variety.  Harriet  P.  Morse  on 
this  point  recently  said :  "We  need  the  agitator,  without  whom  the  wa- 
ters of  civilization  would  become  stagnant ;  the  crank,  without  whom  there 
would  surely  be  nothing  new  under  the  sun ;  the  peacemaker,  who  rectifies 
troubles  that  he  never  caused;  the  musician  who  lifts  us  to  mightier  and 
loftier  realms;  the  great  writer,  who  provides  us  with  companionship  we 
otherwise  could  not  know;  thr  artist,  who  gives  us  insight;  the  poet,  who 
calms  and  soothes  us;  the  teacher,  who  imparts  knowledge  and  inspira- 
tion; the  orator,  who  puts  great  truths  into  pleasing  and  lasting  forms;  the 
idealist,  who  gives  us  glimpses  of  the  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth  which 
are  to  be;  the  organizer,  who  moulds  ineffective  parts  into  an  effective 
whole:  thr  inventor,  who  lessons  our  labors  and  increases  our  rewards; 
the  toiler,  without  whom  all  the  rest  could  not  be." 

Every  normal  human  being  has  the  potentiality  of  excellence  in  the  per- 
formance of  some  necessary  social  service,  and  the  time  is  not  far  distant 
u-hen  we  will  have  social  ownership  of  the  entire  social  product,  and 
when  all  thr  progress  made  as  the  result  of  discovery,  invention,  science 
and  education,  will  likewise  be  appropriated  for  the  benefit  of  society  in- 
stead of  a  privileged  class.  As  throwing  some  light  on  this  point  we 
quote  the  following  from  J.  Allen  Smith  (Spirit  of  American  Govern- 
ment.'* pp.  399-400.):  "All  new  ideas  have  to  be  harmonized  with 
much  that  is  old.  As  at  first  accepted  they  are  only  partially  true.  A 
new  philosophy  requires  time  before  its  benefits  can  be  fully  realized. 
It  must  pass  through  a  process  of  adaptation  by  which  it  is  gradually 
modified,  broadened  and  brought  into  orderly  relations  with  life  in 
general." 

The  theory  of  industrial  freedom  has  during  the  nineteenth  century 
been  passing  through  just  such  a  stage  of  development.  The  contention 
pf  Adam  Smith  and  his  followers  that  the  mere  desire  for  gain  would  of 


EQUALITY  15 


itself  insure  adequate  regulation  of  industry,  is  certainly  not  true  under 
existing  conditions.  Natural  law  is  not  as  he  assumed,  always  beneficent 
in  its  operation.  It  is  just  as  liable  to  produce  harm  as  benefit  unless  it 
is  regulated,  controlled  and  directed  by  appropriate  human  agencies. 
It  needs  no  argument  to  convince  one  that  this  is  true  so  far  as  the  forces 
of  the  physical  world  are  concerned.  Gravitation,  steam  and  electricity 
contributed  nothing  to  human  progress  until  man  discovered  the  means 
whereby  they  could  be  harnessed  and  controlled.  Material  civilization 
means  nothing  else  than  the  development  of  control  over  and  the  conse- 
quent utilization  of  the  materials  and  forces  of  the  physical  world.  An- 
other quotation  from  the  same  author  and  the  same  book  shows  the 
foundation  for  the  economic  inequalities  in  modern  society.  Such  eco- 
nomic inequalities  also  become  the  foundation  for  the  intellectual  con- 
ception of  the  natural  superiority  of  some  men  over  other  men.  "The 
material  environment  is  no  longer  the  common  possession  of  the  group. 
It  has  become  private  property  and  has  passed  under  the  control  of 
individuals  in  whose  interest  the  laws  and  customs  of  every  community, 
ancient  or  modern,  have  been  largely  modeled.  This  is  a  fact  which 
all  history  attests." 

In  a  society  like  the  United  States  where  a  few  possess  greater 
fortunes  than  has  hitheito  been  known,  and  millions  of  the  people  live  in 
abject  poverty,  a  society  in  which  we  have  a  thousand  economic  grada- 
tions all  the  way  from  the  billionaire  on  one  end  to  the  hobo  on  the 
other,  the  public  mind  has  been  susceptible  to  the  dualist  philosophy 
that  the  human  mind  was  not  of  one  kind,  that  the  human  brain  was 
divided  on  class  lines,  on  race  lines,  and  on  sex  lines.  Hence  we  have 
been  taught  that  the  brain  of  a  capitalist  was  made  of  different  material 
than  that  of  a  workingiRan,  and  that  the  brain  of  a  man  was  made  of 
different  material  than  the  brain  of  a  woman;  that  the  mind  of  a  male 
was  superior  to  that  of  a  female.  This  doctrine  is  the  foundation  of 
every  argument  against  equal  suffrage;  likewise  it  is  the  only  defense  of 
the  economic  inequalities  of  modern  civilization. 

The  American  billionaire  considers  himself  in  an  entirely  different 
class  from  those  who  are  ordinary  millionaires.  In  his  mind  he  is  entirely 
superior  to  them.  1  he  ordinary  millionaire  is  likewise  impressed  with 
his  superior  excellence  in  comparison  with  the  man  worth  only  a  hundred 
thousand  dollars.  The  owner  of  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  considers 
himself  entirely  above  the  man  worth  five  thousand  dollars,  and  some  of 
the  five  thousand  dollar  men  imagine  that  they  are  just  about  the  wisest, 
cutest  and  most  important  personages  that  an  all-wise  Providence  has 
endowed  with  guardianship.  They  imagine  themselves  entirely  superior 
to.  and  as  belonging  to  a  class  different  from  the  best  paid  wage  workers 
such  as  bricklayers  or  locomotive  engineers,  and  in  their  turn  the  brick- 


16  EQUALITY 


layer  and  engineer  think  they  are  better  than  the  hod  carrier  or  the 
fireman.  Likewise  the  fireman  thinks  he  is  of  more  importance  than 
the  brakeman,  and  the  brakeman  on  a  first-class  train  thinks  he  is  superior 
to  a  brakeman  on  a  second-class  train,  and  the  brakeman  on  a  second- 
class  train  thinks  he  is  of  an  entirely  different  human  variety  from  the 
porter  on  the  train.  The  porter  sees  the  section  men  at  work-  and  his 
proud  bosom  swells  as  he  contemplates  his  superior  excellence  over  that 
of  a  section  man.  The  hobo  comes  along  and  the  section  man  in  hrs-turn 
is  enthused  in  contemplating  his  immense  wisdom  and  high  station  over 
that  of  the  hobo — the  fellow  that  has  no  job  at  all,  and  even  among  the 
hoboes,  we  have  varieties  or  gradation ;  the  yegg,  the  gaycat  and-  the 
blankeUtiff.  The  yegg  is  conscious  of  his  superiority  over  the -other  two 
varieties,  and  the  gaycat  considers  himself  of  an  entirely  different  class 
from  the  blanketstiff ;  and  even  among  the  blanketstiff  variety  some  of 
them  are  so  stuck-up  that  they  refuse  to  speak  to  another  blanketstiff  when 
they  meet  him  on  the  road.  Down  below  these  is  the  man,  who,  being 
unable  to  force  recognition  from  society  of  his  superior  mind,  opposes 
equal  suffrage  in  the  hope  that  he  will  be  able  to  compel  his  wife  to 
acknowledge  the  superiority  of  the  male  over  the  female  mind. 

The  philosophy  of  social  democracy,  however,  is  making  tremendous 
strides  and  is  having  a  far-reaching  effect  upon  the  intellectual  develop- 
ment, and  when  the  Socialist  program  is  applied,  establishing  the  collect- 
ive ownership  and  democratic  management  of  all  means  of  social  wealth 
production,  we  will  approach  to  the  realization  of  that  equality  pro- 
claimed by  our  forefathers  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Every 
approach  toward  democracy  in  its  last  analysis  must  be  an  approach 
toward  economic  equality,  and  modern  Socialism  is  the  only  tendency  in 
that  direction. 


CHAPTER   III. 

PURPOSE  OF  GOVERNMENT 

The  founders  of  American  government  declared  that  the  only  pur- 
pose of  government  was  to  secure  life,  liberty,  and  happiness  to  all  people. 
Today  every  AmericaH  citizen  knows,  if  he  is  at  all  informed,  that  this  is 
not  the  purpose  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  n6r  of  the  gov- 
ernments of  the  states.  The  government  today  is  practically  a  committee 
to  execute  the  will  of  the  propertied  classes,  big  business  in  the  city,  state 
and  nation.  The  ideal  of  modern  capitalistic  society  is  profit — dollars 


__ PURPOSE  OF  GOVERNMENT [7 

and  dimes — and  this  idea  has  more  complete  sway  in  America  than  in  any 
other  country  in  the  world.  Capitalism  goes  marching,  burning  on,  con- 
suming on  its  altar  of  insatiate  greed,  the  ideals  of  life,  liberty  and 
equality,  and  converts  all  that  has  hitherto  been  sacred,  as  well  as  the 
lives  of  the  majority  of  men,  women  and  children,  into  cold,  callous  cash 
as  profits  on  vested  interest. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  makes  life  and  liberty  for  all  the 
people  more  important  than  consideration  of  property  interests.  Cap- 
italism and  capitalist  government  makes  life  the  cheapest  thing  in  the 
world,  and  the  protection  of  property  and  property  interests  its  only  vital 
consideration.  A  representative  of  congress  in  the  state  of  Washington 
delivered  a  Fourth  of  July  oration  at  Vancouver,  in  1 908,  supposedly  in 
commemoration  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  saying,  "You  may 
deny  the  rights  of  property  to-day,  but  property  will  deny  your  right  to 
life  to-morrow."  And  yet  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence about  property  rights.  This  public  man,  like  many  others,  on 
each  Fourth  of  July  makes  speeches  in  denunciation  of  the  ideals  of 
Americanism  for  which  the  founders  of  the  republic  fought.  Such 
denunciations  are  received  with  great  pleasure  by  the  owners  of  great 
wealth  and  privilege — the  dominant  economic  class  who  own  and  control 
the  means  of  life  for  the  great  mass  of  people. 

When  a  man  owns  and  controls  that  which  I  must  have  in  order  to 
live,  he  just  as  completely  conlrols  my  life  as  if  I  were  his  chattel. 
Under  the  industrial  conditions  of  today,  one  man,  by  his  ownership  of 
material  instruments  of  social  wealth  production,  can  say  to  tens  of  thou- 
sands, "Go!"  and  they  go;  "Come!"  and  they  come;  life  is  becoming 
a  burden  lo  millions,  and  the  word  "liberty"  a  mere  mockery,  and  the 
ordinary  Fourth  of  July  oration  an  insult  to  the  memory  of  those  illus- 
trious Americans  who  pledged  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred 
honor  for  the  freedom  and  equality  of  all  mankind.  The  only  real  issue 
in  America  to-day  is,  shall  this  government  be  an  instrument  of  protec- 
tion to  colossal  wealth  and  special  privilege  of  American  plutocracy,  at 
the  expense  of  the  life,  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  majority  of  the  men, 
women  and  children  of  the  nation;  or,  shall  this  government  represent  the 
spirit  of  1  776,  and  secure  the  life,  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  people,  if 
necessary,  even  at  the  expense  of  wealth  and  privilege.  And  the  citizens  of 
this  country  are  now  called  upon  to  decide  on  which  side  of  this  issue  they 
will  stand.  There  is  no  middle  ground  or  compromise  possible.  The 
wage  working  class  of  this  country  at  the  present  time  can  be  relied  upon 
to  be  on  the  side  of  life  and  liberty,  not  because  they  are  better  than  any 
other  part  of  society,  but  because  they  have  no  vested  interests  or  profits  to 
protect.  By  the  very  nature  of  their  environment,  life,  full,  free  and 
joyous,  is  their  ideal.  They  are  compelled  to  struggle  for  life;  use,  not 


J8 PURPOSE  OF  GOVERNMENT 

profit,  is  their  social  maxim;  social  service  instead  of  social  plunder  is 
their  shibboleth;  manhood  and  womanhood  their  goal,  because  it  is  all 
they  have,  and  all  of  the  revolutionary  elements  in  society  are  now  rap- 
idly joining  the  working  class  in  the  Socialist  movement,  and  will  sooner 
or  later  overwhelm  the  forces  of  reaction  now  in  complete  control  of  the 
various  stales  of  the  nation. 

Likewise,  by  the  very  nature  of  their  environment,  the  class  of  pro- 
prietors, or  the  capitalist  class,  can  be  depended  upon  to  oppose  every 
tendency  to  undermine  what  they  will  call  the  sacred  rights  of  property. 
They  are  riding  on  the  backs  of  labor  and  will  not  dismount  until  invited. 
They  enjoy  special  privileges  and  will  not  relinquish  them  until  forced  to 
do  so.  No  ruling  class  ever  did.  All  ruling  classes  have  ever  been  the 
conservative  and  reactionary  forces  in  any  society  opposing  progress  and 
every  extension  of  popular  rights.  The  capitalistic  class  and  their 
spokesman  in  America  today  assumes  the  same  attitude  towards  Social- 
ism as  did  King  George  and  the  Tories  towards  American  Revolutionists. 
But  humanity  has  again  begun  its  march;  the  river  of  progress,  tempo- 
rarily dammed  up,  again  take?  its  course.  The  marvelous  power  of  pro- 
ductive development  of  the  last  century,  the  unprecedented  development 
of  mechanical  and  inventive  genius  of  man.  combined  with  the  general 
diffusion  of  scientific  knowledge,  compulsory  education  and  the  amazing 
increase  of  the  stupendous  organization  of  machine  production,  have  laid 
a  foundation  for  the  abolition  of  poverty  and  privilege,  and  the  appear- 
ance of  a  Comrade  World,  and  Industrial  Democracy,  in  which  an  in- 
jury to  one  would  be  the  concern  of  all. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

POWERS  OF  GOVERNMENT 

-HOW  DERIVED 

The  principle  of  self-government  as  enunciated  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  is  a  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  all  the  people.  That 
is  to  say,  that  the  people  collectively  shall  be  the  supreme  authority. 
That  the  collective  will  in  city,  county,  state  or  national  government 
should  be  the  supreme  law.  This  doctrine  is  an  assumption  that  the 
public  good  and  general  welfare  can  be  best  promoted  and  protected  by 
the  people  themselves.  This  places  the  will  of  the  majority  above  that  of 
the  representatives,  senators,  and  governors,  presidents  or  judges.  Cer- 


POWERS  OF  GOVERNMENT— HOW  DERIVED     19 

tainly  no  one  could  wish  for  a  broader  or  more  complete  idea  of  political 
democracy  than  this. 

While  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  (to  be  dealt  with  in 
a  chapter  to  follow,)  was  an  endeavor  to  nullify  this  doctrine  of  self-gov- 
ernment, this  spiril  of  democracy  has  manifested  itself  from  time  to  time 
and  has  always  had  adherents  in  every  part  of  the  country,  and  is  opposed 
today  only  by  that  part  of  the  people  who  have  inherited  the  monarchical 
idea  that  what  is  called  the  better  elements  in  society  should  rule. 
Even  such  well-known  American  statesmen  as  Clay,  Calhoun  and  Web- 
ster, arc  represented  to  have  held  this  view,  anJ  every  spokesman  of  the 
ruling  class  hold  and  defend  it  to-day.  Ex-President  Roosevelt  not 
long  ago  attacked  this  philosophy  of  self-government,  and  said,  in  the 
"Outlook"  Magazine,  that  "the  framers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence wr.rr  mistaken,"  and  President  Taft,  in  his  veto  message  to  Congress 
on  the  bill  granting  statehood  to  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  not  only 
voiced  his  sentiments  in  opposition  to  the  right  of  the  people  to  recall 
judges,  but  also  repudiated  the  idea  of  self-government. 

David  .1.  Brewer,  in  World's  Best  Orations,"  says:  "Webster, 
Clay  and  Calhoun  occupied  common  ground  in  their  descent  from  Ben- 
ton's  theory  that  the  'better  element'  of  the  community  is  apt  to  give  the 
woirt  results  when  it  is  trusted  to  govern  the  rest.  This  theory  was  in- 
volved in  Jefferson's  teachings,  but  it  did  not  come  into  actual  and  wide 
collision  with  the  stately  patriotism  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  colonial 
and  revolutionary  period  until  such  of  them  as  survived  in  1828  saw 
Jackson  with  Benlon  at  his  back  ready  to  force  issues  in  its  behalf,  as 
they  had  never  been  forced  before  in  any  English-speaking  country." 

Andtrw  Jack-on  was  undoubtedly  a  believe  in  the  democratic 
principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  turbulent  political 
condition;;  of  his  administration  and  the  manner  in  which  he  was  assailed 
by  privileg*  is  FOTTJC  evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  adherence  to  the  prin- 
cipl-5  of  s<lf-govrrnment.  About  the  time  of  Jackson's  administration, 
the  German  philosopher.  Professor  Hegel,  very  correctly  accounted  for 
the  democratic  appearance  of  the  American  government  in  the  early  years 
of  its  exisiepce,  and  at  the  same  time  gave  an  interpretation  of  the  reason 
why  we  do  not  have  a  semblance  of  democracy  to-day.  Under  the  title 
of  Philosophy  of  History,  p.  141,  in  Collier's  edition  of  Library  of 
Universal  Literature,  Hegel  says:  "As  to  the  political  condition  of 
North  America,  the  general  object  of  the  existence  of  the  state  is  not 
yet  fixed  and  determined,  and  the  necessity  for  a  firm  combination  does 
not  yet  exist,  for  a  real  state  and  a  real  government  arrive  only  after  a 
distinction  of  classes  has  arisen,  when  wealth  and  poverty  become  ex- 
treme, and  wheji  such  a  condition  of  things  presents  itself  that  a  large 


20    POWERS  OF  GOVERNMENT—HOW  DERIVED 

portion  of  the  people  can  no  longer  satisfy  its  necessities  in  the  way  it 
has  been  accustomed  to  do.'* 

The  Socialists  favor  and  use  such  measures  as  the  referendum,  ini- 
tiative and  recall,  and  all  other  measures  calculated  to  extend  the  po- 
litical power  of  the  people;  and  at  the  same  time,  we  point  out  that  a  po- 
litical democracy  never  existed  where  a  small  percentage  of  the  population 
owned  three-fourths  of  the  nation's  wealth,  and  the  majority  of  the  people 
were  propertyless.  Under  such  conditions  the  essential  material  elements 
for  democracy  do  not  exist.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  all  legisla- 

, decisions  of  courts,  and  acts  of  governments  pertain  to  property. 
Waldo  Emerson,  in  his  Essay  on  Politics,  says:  "All  laws  per- 
taining <o  property  will  be  made  by  property."  Our  experience  in  the 
United  States  is  ample  proof  of  Emerson's  statement.  Laws  pertaining 
to  the  banking  business  are  passed  by  Congress,  but  are  in  reality  made 
by  bankers.  Railroad  legislation  passed  by  State  Legislatures  or  Congress 
is  made  by  railroads.  Insurance  law*  are  made  by  the  insurance  com- 
panies and  so  on  throughout  all  laws  of  property  interests,  and  so  long  as 
the  nation's  wealth  is  within  the  hands  of  a  few,  these  few  will,  in  reality, 
be  the  government. 

The  ideals  held  by  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Taft,  and  all  leaders 
of  both  democratic  and  republican  parties,  who  hold  that  government  is  in- 
stituted to  protect  property  regardless  of  life  or  liberty  are  opposed  to  even 
an  approach  to  democracy.  Adam  Smith,  in  his  Wealth  of  Nations,  saysS 
"Civil  government,  so  far  as  it  is  instituted  for  the  security  of  property, 
is  in  reality  instituted  for  the  defense  of  the  rich  against  the  poor,  or  of 
those  who  have  some  property,  against  those  who  have  none  at  all." 

The  insurgents,  or  progressive  republicans,  propose  to  solve  the 
problems  of  domination  and  supremacy  of  the  trusts  and  colossal  wealth, 
by  passing  measures  to  limit  the  power  to  combine,  and  appointing  com- 
missions to  regulate  and  control  stupendous  industries  and  commercial 
organizations.  All  such  methods  will  prove  worse  than  useless.  The 
progressive  republicans  and  radical  democrats  in  regard  to  the  problems 
of  to-day  occupy  about  the  same  position  as  did  the  Douglas  democrats, 
and  the  Missouri  Compromise  advocates  in  regard  to  the  slavery  question, 
and  the  Socialists  occupy  a  similar  position  to  that  of  the  Abolitionists. 
To-day  class  ownership  of  the  natural  resources,  of  the  material  instru- 
ments of  social  wealth  production,  makes  at  least  one-half  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  men,  women  and  children,  wage  slaves,  just  as  helpless,  but 
affording  greater  possibilities  of  exploitation  than  did  the  slaves  of  the 
South. 

To  say  that  we  will  not  extend  slavedom  will  not  solve  the  problem, 
for  this  slavery  will  extend  as  long  as  the  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction is  invested  in  a  class.  To  say  that  we  will  control  this  slavery 


POWERS  OF  GOVERNMENT—HOW  DERIVED    21 

will  not  mitigate  it  in  any  way.  We  can  increase  the  powers  of  the 
interstate  commerce  commission,  or  the  powers  of  city  or  state  public 
utilities  commissions,  and  regulate  rates  as  we  will;  the  fact  will  remain 
that  arising  from  the  ownership  of  the  means  of  production,  the  owners 
have  power  to  appropriate  the  entire  product  of  labor,  all  the  benefits  of 
progress,  discovery,  invention  and  science,  and  to  retain  the  entire  working 
class  as  a  commodity,  yet  the  traffic  in  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men, 
women  and  children  will  still  continue,  and  the  reward  of  labor  will  be 
the  price  of  a  miserable  existence. 

Before  we  have  a  government  for  the  people,  of  the  people,  and  by 
the  people,  wage  slavery  will  have  to  be  abolishd.  Wage  slavery  cannot 
be  abolished  without  the  abolition  of  the  class  ownership  of  the  material 
means  of  production.  This  the  Socialists  alone  propose  to  do  through  the 
legal  political  process.  This  does  not  mean  that  we  favor  the  destruction 
of  any  wealth.  On  the  other  hand,  it  means  that  the  ownership  of  prop- 
erty in  the  means  of  social  production  by  the  capitalistic  class,  makes  the 
ownership  of  property  in  the  product  of  their  labor  impossible  to  the  ma- 
jority of  the  American  people.  The  transformation  of  capitalistic  prop- 
erty— that  wealth  used  in  social  poduction  into  the  collective  wealth  of 
the  people — will  emancipate  labor  from  wage  slavery,  and  at  the  same 
time  wipe  out  all  special  privilege  now  enjoyed  by  the  capitalistic  class, 
and  make  it  possible  for  all  citizens  to  become  proprietors,  to  appropri- 
ate the  full  product  of  their  toil,  and  have  an  equal  chance  to  appropriate 
the  advantages  of  an  ever-advancing  civilization.  As  the  small  group 
of  people  to-day  who,  by  their  ownership  of  those  things  that  all  society 
must  use  in  order  to  live,  is  in  reality  the  government,  so,  when  the 
people  collectively  own  and  control  all  these  things  upon  which  their 
collective  life  and  well-being  depend,  the  people  collectively  will  be  the 
government. 

This  is  the  Socialistic  program,  and  it  is  the  only  program  that  will 
make  possible  the  realization  of  the  principle*  of  self-government,  the 
disappearance  of  class  and  class  rule,  and  the  realization  of  the  dream 
of  Mr.  Jefferson,  "equal  opportunity  to  all,  special  privileges  to  none." 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE  RIGHT  OF  REVOLUTION 

One  of  the  principles  of  government  upon  which  this  nation  was 
founded  is  the  principle  of  revolution.  The  foundation  of  every  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  freedom  and  equality. 
Upon  that  doctrine  is  based  the  theory  that  the  purpose  of  government  is 


22 THE  RIGHT  OF  REVOLUTION 

to  secure  the  life,  liberty  and  happiness  of  all  men,  and  likewise  die 
theory  that  every  just  power  of  government  must  be  derived  from  the 
consent  of  the  people.  The  principle  of  revolution  was  added  as  a  safe- 
guard to  the  other  principles  of  government  proclaimed  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence.  Therefore  we  are  told  that  whenever  any  form 
of  government  becomes  destructive  of  these  principles — freedom,  equality, 
Hfe,  liberty,  happiness,  or  the  authority  of  the  people  collectively — then 
it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  people  to  aker  or  abolish  that  form  of  gov- 
ernment, and  to  institute  a  new  government,  laying  its  foundation,  and 
organizing  its  form  in  such  a  manner  as  seems  most  likely  to  effect  their 
safety  and  happiness.  This  is  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  revolution  ad- 
hered to  by  the  American  Revolutionists,  and  still  adhered  to  by  every 
American  imbued  with  the  spirit  in  which  this  nation  was  founded. 

Thomas  Jefferson  defended  the  right  of  revolution  in  his  first  in- 
augural address,  taking  office  as  president  of  the  United  States,  speaking 
ing  of  certain  rights  that  should  be  maintained  at  all  coste.  He  named 
the  following  as  such:  Fret:  and  fair  elections  participated  in  by  all 
the  people,  and  the  sword  of  revolution  where  peaceful  methods  are  not 
provided."  John  Adams,  speaking  in  defense  of  reyolution,  said:  "The 
furnace  of  affliction  produces  refinement  in  states  as  well  as  individuals." 
Daniel  Webster,  in  his  debates  with  Mr.  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina, 
quoted  Blackstone  to  prove  that  revolution  was  a  civil  right.  Wendell 
Phillips  and  Abraham  Lincoln  were  both  champions  of  the  principle  of 
revolution.  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  this  subject,  said:  "This  country,  toith 
its  institutions,  belongs  to  the  people  who  inhabit  it.  Whenever  they 
shall  grow  weary  of  the  existing  government,  they  can  exercise  their  con- 
stitutional right  of  amending  it,  or  their  revolutionary  right  to  dismember 
or  overthrow  it.  Why  should  there  not  be  a  patient  confidence  in  the 
ultimate  justice  of  the  people.  Is  there  any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the 
worlds- 
Only  the  Socialists  and  those  in  sympathy  with  them  are  to-day  de- 
fending this  principle,  as  did  Mr.  Lincoln,  Mr.  Jefferson  and  the  early 
American  patriot?.  Therefore  the  Socialists  arc  opposed  by  the  ruling 
class  to-day  as  the  American  Revolutionists  were  opposed  by  royalty 
and  ari.'tocracy,  and  as  Lincoln  was  opposed  by  the  slave  owning  aris- 
tocracy. 

Ore  of  the  doctrines  of  the  American  Revolutionists  was  that 
"when  protection  is  withdrawn,  allegiance  should  cease."  Should  the 
American  people  adopt  that  rule  to-day,  that  is,  give  our  allegiance  to 
the  government  orly  to  the  extent  that  the  government  affords  protection  to 
life,  liberty  and  happiness,  the  allegiance  of  a  great  majority  would  be 
withdrawn.  I  do  not  intend  here  to  recite  in  detail  the  grievances  of  th'- 
American  people  against  the  clase  character  qf  the  American  govern- 


THE  RIGHT  OF  REVOLUTION  23 


ment.  The  grievances  of  the  American  Revolutionists  or  the  contumely 
borne  by  them  was  practically  nothing  in  comparison  to  the  exploitation, 
poverty  and  degradation  borne  patiently  by  the  working  class  of  the 
twentieth  ctntury.  The  American  Revolutionist  did  not  have  to  send 
his  children  to  mill,  mine,  shop  and  factory.  To-day  the  number  of 
child  laborers  in  the  United  States  is  equal  to  the  entire  population  at 
the  time  of  the  American  Revolution.  The  American  Revolutionist  did 
not  have  to  send  his  wife  out  as  a  wage  worker,  nor  his  daughter  to 
work  for  a  pittance  in  any  ckpartme.it  store,  nor  was  he  called  upon 
to  furnish  from  his  fireside  five  hundred  thousand  inmates  for  Louses  of 
ill  repute.  All  of  this  is  borne  by  the  American  working  class  to-day. 
ITie  American  Revolutionist  had  free  access  to  the  land.  To-day  this 
is  denied  to  three-fourths  of  the  population.  The  American  Revolu- 
tionist could  work  for  himself  or  find  an  employer.  To-day  there 
are  millions  of  people  unable  to  find  employment  at  all,  and  the  very 
nature  of  capitalistic  production  piO^Jaces  a  large  army  of  unemployed, 
and,  to  hundreds  of  thousand's  of  these  life  has  become  a  burden,  and  to 
millions  of  them  the  word  "liberty"  is  a  mere  mockery-.  Therefore  the 
Socialists  proclaim  a  revolution;  not  a  revolution  of  violence,  but  a  revo- 
lution just  the  same. 

Revolution  is  not  something  apart  from  evolution,  but  is  a  part  of 
evolution.  If  you  would,  by  force,  open  a  rose  bud  before  the  evolu- 
tionary process  had  prepared  for  the  revolutionary  cisis  of  blooming,  you 
would  produce  a  reaction  and  not  a  revolution.  Likewise,  if  you  were 
to  open  an  egg  in  process  of  hatching  several  days  before  the  evolutionary 
process  was  complete,  you  would  produce  a  reaction,  not  a  revolution. 
The  revolutionary  action  in  breaking  an  egg  shell  or  the  bursting  of  a 
rosebud  must  be  at  the  time  when  the  evolutionary  process  has  thor- 
oughly prepared  the  way  for  the  revolutionary  action. 

The  Socialists  hold  that  no  old  society  has  ever  passed  away  unlil 
it  has  developed  all  the  productive  forces  for  which  there  was  room 
within  the  old  society,  and  ihat  no  new  society  has  ever  arisen  until  the 
material  conditions  for  its  existence  have  been  developed  out  of  the  womb 
of  the  old  society.  Accordingly  the  Socialists  propose  only  those 
changes  that  are  compatible  with  the  economic  and  intellectual  develop- 
ment of  society  at  the  time  the  change  is  proposed*;  and  this  is  the  basis 
from  an  evolutionary  and  scientific  standpoint  of  a  social  revolu- 
tion so  frequently  referred  to  by  the  Socialists. 

The  material  conditions  for  the  disappearance  of  capitalism  and 
the  appearance  of  a  new  social  order  have  already  developed  within 
capitalist  society  in  the  United  States.  The  development  of  aJl  the  pro- 
ductive forces  for  which  there  is  room  within  the  present  society  has 


24 THE  RIGHT  OF  REVOLUTION 

been  more  completely  accomplished  in  America  than  in  any  other  country 
of  the  world. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Malthus,  an  English 
political  economist,  pointed  out  that  the  population  of  the  earth  was  in- 
creasing at  a  greater  ratio  than  our  ability  to  produce  wealth,  and  that  if 
pestilence  did  not  destroy  the  lives  of  millions  of  the  population,  that  the 
nations  would  be  compelled  to  go  to  war  with  one  another  and  kill 
enough  of  the  people  in  order  that  the  remaining  part  of  the  population 
might  have  sufficient  food,  clothing  and  the  necessities  of  life.  The 
problem  of  that  period  was  the  problem  of  production,  or  how  to  increase 
the  productive  forces.  The  development  of  the  forces  of  modern  pro- 
duction has  not  only  solved  that  problem,  but  is  forcing  all  the  great  na- 
tions of  the  world  to-day  to  grapple  with  the  problem  of  consumption. 
"How  can  we  get  a  market  for  what  we  have  the  ability  to  produce," 
is  the  economic  problem  which  chiefly  concerns  the  statesmanship  of 
every  country.  This  problem  cannot  be  solved  by  wars  of  commercial 
conquest,  nor  by  any  kind  of  tariff  legislation;  nor  can  it  be  solved  by  any 
kind  of  reformed  legislation  calculated  to  place  limitations  upon  the 
power  of  gigantic  corporations.  There  is  only  one  solution  of  the  great 
economic  problem  of  our  nation — the  problem  of  consumption.  The 
solution  is  to  increase  the  consumptive  capacity  of  the  people  until  the 
consumptive  capacity  equals  their  productive  capacity.  This  can  be 
done  by  removing  the  limitations  now  placed  upon  the  consumptive 
ability  of  the  great  majority  of  people.  To  illustrate,  out  of  every  five 
million  dollars'  worth  of  wealth  produced  by  the  working  class  in 
America,  ihe  working  class  receive  in  wages  only  one  million.  Hence, 
they  can  consume  only  one-fifth  of  their  total  product.  The  capitalist 
class,  who  receive  four-fifths  of  the  total  wealth  production  are  numer- 
ically too  small  to  consume  very  much.  The  only  solution,  therefore, 
to  the  economic  problem  of  this  nation  is  the  abolition  of  the  wage  sys- 
tem, and  as  the  wage  system  arises  from  the  capitalist  class  ownership  of 
the  means  of  production,  it  follows  that  the  social  revolution  in  all  coun- 
tries must  mean  the  abolition  of  the  class  ownership  of  the  material  in- 
struments of  social  wealth  production,  and  a  substitution  of  collective 
ownership  and  democratic  management  of  all  means  of  social  wealth  pro- 
duction. 

This  is  the  revolution.  The  program  of  the  Socialist,  for  its  ac- 
complishment is  to  unite  the  working  class  and  all  in  sympathy  with  the 
working  class  into  a  political  party  separate  and  distinct  from  all  parties 
of  the  capitalist  class.  Thus  organized,  the  working  class  wages  the 
class  struggle  in  city,  county,  state  and  nation.  First,  the  Socialist  will 
take  possession  of  the  political  power  in  cities  and  counties,  and  this 
power  will  be  the  basis  of  the  conquest  of  the  political  power  of  the  states 


THE  RIGHT  OF  REVOLUTION 25 

and  nation.  When  the  political  power  of  the  nation  falls  into  the  hands 
of  the  Socialist,  the  Socialist  will  then  transform  capitalist  property  in 
the  means  of  production  into  collective  wealth.  They  will  then  have 
power  to  give  legal  sanction  to  this  act.  The  Socialist  Party,  then,  is 
the  legal  and  constitutional  program  of  the  revolutionary  movement  of 
the  twentieth  century.  Socialism  is  the  only  solution  of  the  economic 
problem  of  the  nations,  and  is  the  only  road  to  democracy.  All  of  the 
economic  development  of  the  past,  all  the  forces  of  social  evolution,  all 
the  knowledge  arising  from  the  development  of  modern  physical  science, 
as  well  as  the  dynamic  force  of  the  class  struggle,  makes  certain  the  dis- 
appearance of  class  rule  forever,  and  the  appearance  of  social  de- 
mocracy. 

The  United  States,  on  account  of  material  conditions,  should  be  the 
first  country  in  the  world  to  solve  this  economic  problem.  It  should, 
therefore  be  the  first  country  in  the  world  to  begin  the  inauguration  of 
the  social  revolution  that  will  transform  capitalist  society  into  an  associ- 
ated humanity.  The  founders  of  this  republic  were  the  first  to  pro- 
claim the  principles  of  freedom  and  equality  for  all  mankind.  Let  the 
Socialists  of  America  cause  this  nation  to  be  the  first  to  lead  the  world 
in  the  realization  of  what  was  but  a  dream  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

Judge  Gary,  Cardinal  Gibbons  and  Governor  Woodrow  Wilson, 
each  are  of  the  opinion  that  we  are  about  to  have  another  French  revo- 
lution. Thanks  to  the  Socialists  this  catastophe  will  be  averted.  Any 
form  of  violence  is  incompatible  with  the  intellectual  development  of  the 
twentieth  century.  The  use  of  any  form  of  violence  in  the  United 
States  at  the  present  time  could  only  produce  reaction,  not  revolution. 

The  Socialist  propaganda  has  been  the  most  potential  factor  in  the 
development  of  the  social  concept,  and  the  social  revolution  not  only 
includes  every  country,  but  the  last  man  in  every  country.  The  social 
revolution  liberates  the  means  of  life  from  private  ownership  and  free*  the 
mind  as  well  as  the  body  of  all  mankind.  It  will  free  society  from 
class  rule,  class  struggles,  and  the  acts  of  violence  arising  therefrom. 

The  social  revolution  is  on  now;  it  is  the  greatest  thing  in  the 
world,  and  to  its  successful  and  peaceful  accomplishment  all  Socialists 
pledge  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor. 


26    THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 
CHAPTER   VI. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE 
REVOLUTION 

"The  American  Revolution  was  a  supreme  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
American  colonists  to  establish  a  democracy  a  government  in  which  the 
will  of  the  people  would  be  supreme.  And  for  a  time  the  democratic 
spirit  manifested  itself  and  some  of  the  early  town  governments  were 
local  democracies.  Some  of  the  state  constitutions  adopted  prior  to  the 
federal  constitution,  likewise,  expressed  the  same  idea  of  sovereignty  of 
the  people  without  any  constitutional  checks  or  curbs.  However,  the 
convention  which  prepared  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  came  as 
a  reaction  of  the  revolution  and  was  clearly  an  endeavor  on  the  part  of 
its  framers  to  check,  stifle,  and  nullify  all  the  possibilities  of  popular 
government  fought  for  by  the  American  Revolutionists.  At  the  time 
of  the  revolution,  perhaps  one-third  of  the  population  were  in  sympathy 
\vrth  royalty  and  aristocracy.  They  were  the  men  in  public  office  under 
the  king,  their  wealthy  and  influential  friends,  Tories,  and  aristocrats. 
The  fanners,  who  had  fought  to  make  independence  possible,  at  the  close 
of  the  war  found  themselves  in  a  deplorable  financial  condition,  and 
were  compelled  to  set  themselves  to  the  task  of  making  a  living  for 
themselves  and  families.  At  this  juncture,  the  Tory  influence  became 
active,  and  when  the  conveution  was  called  in  1 787  to  amend  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  the  element  which  had  opposed  the  revolu- 
tion seemed  to  be  in  complete  control,  and  none  of  the  most  prominent 
men  of  the  revolution  were  delegates.  Patrick  Henry,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Thomas  Paine,  and  such  men  were  conspicuous  only  by  their  absence. 
The  convention,  instead  of  pursuing  the  business  for  which  it  was  sp» 
cifically  called,  assumed,  without  authority,  the  task  of  making  a  con- 
stitution for  the  United  States  government.  The  deliberations  of  said 
constitutional  convention  were  kept  a  close  secret  by  the  members,  and 
the  public  kept  in  total  ignorance  of  the  work  of  the  body.  This  act 
within  itself  was  not  only  enough  to  cast  suspicion  on  the  acts  of  the  dele- 
gates, but  was  un-American,  and  unworthy  of  the  men  who  claimed  to 
represent  anything  in  the  semblance  of  the  ideal  of  popular  government, 
and  it  was  many  years -after  the  acjo^jfion  of  the  Constitution  before  the 
public  had  access  to  the  records  of  the  Constitutional  Convention.  That 
the  suspicions  held,  and  the  accusations  hurled  against  the  members  of 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  REVOLUTION    27 

the  convention  at  that  time  are  true  have  been  amply  attested  by  over  a 
century's  experience. 

The  United  States  Constitution  was  never  ratified  by  popular  vote 
of  the  people  and  it  is  certain  that  it  would  have  been  rejected  if  sub- 
mitted to  a  popular  vote.  "Had  the  decision  been  left  to  what  is  now 
called  the  vote  of  the  people,  that  is,  to  the  mass  of  citizens  all  over  the 
country,  voting  at  the  polls,  the  voice  of  the  people  would  have  probably 
pronounced  against  the  Constitution."  (American  Commonwealth — 
Bryce.)  That  there  was  popular  disapproval  of  the  action  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  in  conducting  its  deliberations  in  secret  and  as- 
suming powers  not  delegated  to  it  is  shown  by  a  speech  delivered  by  Mr. 
James  Wilson  before  the  Pennsylvania  Convention  in  favor  of  the  ratifi- 
cation of  the  Constitution.  It  will  be  seen  trfat  the  only  defense  he  gave 
of  himself  and  his  colleagues  was  to  tell  a  humorous  story  to  make  the 
people  laugh  and  thus  detract  their  attention  from  the  real  issue.  The 
extract  from  Mr.  Wilson's  speech  referred  to  is  as  follows:  "The 
business,  we  are  told,  which  was  entrusted  k>  the  late  Convention  was 
merely  to  amend  the  present  Articles  of  Confederation.  This  observa- 
tion has  been  frequently  made,  and  has  often  brought  to  my  mind  a 
story  that  is  related  of  Mr.  Pope,  who,  as  is  well  known,  was  not  a 
little  deformed.  It  was  customary  with  him  to  use  this  phrase,  'God 
mend  me,'  wfien  any  little  accident  hapj^ened.  One  evening  a  link-boy 
was  lighting  him  along  and  coming  to  a  gutter  the  boy  jumped  nimbly 
over  it,.  Mr.  Pope  called  to  him  to  turn,  adding,  'God  mend  me.' 
Tte  arch-rogue,  turning  to  light  him,  looked  at  him,  and  repeated,  'God 
mend  you!  He  would  sooner  make  a  half  doeen  new  ones.'*  This 
would  apply  to  the  present  Confederation,  for  it  would  be  easier  to  make 
another  than  to  amend  this."  (Elliott's  Debates.  Vol.  2,  p.  470.) 

The  framers  of  the  United  States  Constitution  did  not  intend  that 
instrument  to  provide  for  a  democracy.  "It  has  been  common,"  says  a 
late  Justice  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  "to  designate  our 
form  of  government  as  a  democracy,  but  in  the  true  sense  of  which  that 
term  is  properly  used  as  defining  a  government  in  which  all  its  acts  are 
performed  by  the  people,  it  is  about  as  far  from  it  as  any  other  of  which 
I  am  aware."  (S.  F.  Miller,  Lectures  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  pp.  84-85.)  The  Constitution,  furthermore,  did  not 
provide  for  a  republic.  A  republic  is  a  form  of  government  in  which  the 
legislative,  executive  and  judicial  powers  are  exercised  by  repsesenta- 
trvee  of  the  people,  said  representatives  being  elected  by  the  people  and  re- 
sponsible to  them. 

The  elaborate  system  of  checks  and  curbs  embodied  in  the  Constitu- 
tion was  intended  to  take  the  power  out  of  the  hands  of  the  people  and 
place  it  in  the  hands  of  a  select  few  who  could  be  relied  upon  to  protect 


26    THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 

the  rich  and  powerful  minority  against  the  poor  but  struggling  majority. 

Thus  the  Constitution  has  become  the  citadel  of  strength  and  power 
of  corporate  greed,  public  service  corporations,  and  aggregated  wealth 
used  in  the  exploitation  of  manhood,  womanhood,  and  childhood. 

The  Constitutional  plan  for  placing  all  governmental  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  few  for  the  protection  of  the  rich  is  defended  to-day  by  ev- 
ery apologist  of  the  present  social  order.  Judge  William  Howard  Taft, 
while  speaking  before  the  American  Bar  Association  in  1895,  on  "Re- 
cent Criticisms  of  the  Federal  Judiciary,"  spoke  in  part  as  follows: 
"While  Socialism,  as  such,  has  not  obtained  much  of  a  foot-hold  in  this 
country,  schemes  which  are  necessarily  Socialistic  in  their  nature  are 
accepted  planks  in  the  platform  of  a  large  political  party.  The  under- 
lying principle  of  such  schemes  is  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  to 
equalize  the  inequalities  which  the  rights  of  free  contract  and  private 
property  have  brought  about,  and,  by  enormous  outlay,  derived  as  far 
as  possible  from  the  rich,  to  afford  occupation  and  sustenance  to  the  poor. 
However  disguised  such  plans  of  social  and  governmental  reform  are, 
they  find  their  support  in  the  willingness  of  their  advocates  to  transfer 
without  compensation  from  one  who  has  acquired  a  large  part  of  his  ac- 
quisition to  those  who  have  been  less  prudent,  enegetic  or  fortunate. 
This,  of  course,  involves  confiscation,  and  the  destruction  of  the  principle 
of  private  property."  (American  Bar  Association,  1895,  p.  246.) 

Modern  critics  of  the  Supreme  Court  would  give  us  the  impres- 
sion that  the  federal  judiciary  are  usurping  power  that  was  neither  con- 
ferred nor  implied  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  It  will  become 
apparent,  however,  to  all  those  who  care  to  investigate  the  matter  that  the 
powers  exercised  by  the  Supreme  Court  are  in  harmony  with  the  general 
plan  of  checks  provided  in  the  Constitution  for  no  other  reason  than  to 
prevent  popular  government 

The  Constitution  provides  a  national  House  of  Representatives, 
elected  directly  by  the  people,  but  the  representatives  of  the  people 
could  not  be  trusted  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  so  a  United  States 
Senate  was  provided  for,  not  elected  by  the  people,  but  by  the  State 
Legislatures.  The  only  idea  for  the  establishment  of  such  a  body  was 
to  place  a  balance  against  the  will  of  the  people,  and,  fearful  they 
might  occasionally  enter  into  conspiracy  with  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives to  pass  some  law  in  the  interests  of  the  people  as  opposed  to  special 
privileges,  provided  the  veto  power  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
president,  a  power  not  exercised  by  the  king  of  England  for  over  one 
hundred  years;  and  finally,  as  the  ultimate  safeguard  to  protect  the 
wealthy  few  against  the  interests  of  the  majority,  a  Supreme  Court  was 
provided,  also  exercising  the  veto  power  in  case  both  the  legislative  and 
executive  departments  of  government  should  enter  into  said  conspiracy, 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  REVOLUTION    29 

and  in  order  to  remove  thb  court  entirely  out  of  the  reach  of  the  public, 
they  were  to  be  appointed,  and  appointed  for  life.  Thus  the  destruction 
of  the  spirit  in  which  this  nation  was  born  became  complete  as  far  as 
the  Constitution  could  make  it.  The  powers  exercised  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  are  by  far  greater  than  the  power  exercised 
by  any  similar  body  in  any  country  in  the  world.  Their  power  does 
not  end  in  declaring  acts  of  Congress  null  and  void,  but  reaches  out  and 
destroys  the  principle  of  democracy  in  the  various  state  governments  as 
well.  The  Supreme  Court  not  only  passes  upon  the  constitutionality  of 
laws  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  Legislature 
concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  signed  by  the  Governor,  and  approved  by 
the  State  Supreme  Court,  but  goes  even  further,  and  is  now  passing  upon 
the  constitutionality  of  an  act  of  the  people  of  Oregon  in  establishing  for 
themselves  direct  legislation  through  the  initiative  and  referendum,  con- 
stitutional amendments  made  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  popular 
vote  of  that  State.  Thus  the  Supreme  Court  in  passing  its  decision  on 
the  Oregon  case  at  the  same  time  passes  upon  the  right  of  the  people  of 
every  other  state  to  amend  their  Constitution  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing direct  legislation  or  any  other  measure  decided  by  popular  major- 
ity within  the  State. 

(Note — Since  writing  the  above  paragraph  the  Supreme  Court  de- 
clined to  pass  upon  the  Oregon  case  at  all;  not  because  it  did  not  have 
power  to  do  so  under  the  Constitution,  but  for  the  reason  it  did  not  care 
to  exercise  the  powers  vested  in  the  Court  by  the  Constitution  just  at  this 
time  when  popular  sentiment  is  demanding  an  extension  of  the  demo- 
cratic idea.) 

While  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  power  to  repress  the 
expression  of  democracy  in  State  governments,  the  State  Legislatures  like- 
wise have  the  same  power  to  curb  the  disposition  of  municipal  democ- 
racy by  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power  on  city  charters  for  local  self- 
government.  Thus  we  see  the  Constitution  places  all  power  at  the  top 
in  order  that  the  power  at  the  bottom  may  be  kept  bound  and  gagged. 

The  question  is,  how  long  will  the  people  consent  to  have  their  voices 
muffled  and  their  feet  manacled  by  an  instrument  deliberately  framed  for 
that  purpose.  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  in  his  Liberator,  as  early  as 
1 83 1 ,  said:  "The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  a  contract  with 
hell,  a  compact  with  infamy." 

J.  Allen  Smith,  in  his  book.  Spirit  of  the  American  Government" 
(p.  104),  a  book  that  every  advocate  of  popular  government  should 
read — §ays:  "It  is  easy  to  see  in  the  exaltation  of  the  federal  judiciary 
a  survival  of  the  old  mediaeval  doctrine  that  the  king  can  do  no  wrong. 
In  fact,  much  the  same  attitude  of  mind  which  made  monarchy  possible 
may  be  seen  in  this  country  in  our  attitude  toward  the  Supreme  Court" 


30    THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 

The  makers  of  the  Constitution  made  amendment  to  it  almost  im- 
possible. 

The  abolition  of  the  Senate,  the  withdrawal  of  the  veto  power  frdrrt 
the  president,  the  taking  from  the  Supreme  Court  its  unjust  and  unprece- 
dented powers  of  passing  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  Con- 
gress or  the  right  of  the  people  to  directly  amend  their  State  Constitu- 
tions by  popular  vote,  and  making  it  elective  and  directly  responsible  tti 
the  people,  are  Constitutional  amendments  that  an  overwhelming  majority 
of  the  American  people  would  vote  for.  But  the  Constitution  cannot  bf 
amended  by  a  majority  of  the  people,  nor  a  majority  of  the  States;  the 
provision  to  amend  requires  the  action  of  three-fourths  of  the  States. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  conceived  in  secret,  born 
of  monarchical  influence,  and  was  not  only  a  conspiracy  against  the  lib- 
erty fought  for  by  the  American  Revolutionists,  but  against  the  liberty  of 
posterity  as  well,  and  if  it  cannot  be  amended  so  as  to  become  an  instru- 
ment of  popular  government  and  a  defense  of  the  majority  in  their  struggle 
for  life  and  liberty  against  the  aggressions  and  tyranny  of  the  wealthy 
few,  then  the  necessities  and  intelligence  of  the  people  of  the  twentieth 
century  will  compel  them  to  interpret  the  Constitution  in  the  interests  of 
humanity  under  the  conditions  of  the  twentieth  century,  or,  if  this  is  im- 
possible, the  people  have  the  power  to  abolish  it. 

A  decision  of  the  State  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  rendered  Nov. 
16.  1911.  passing  upon  the  constitutionality  of  a  workmen's  compensation 
act.  passed  by  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature,  gives  expression  to  a 
thought  that  is  not  only  timely,  but  that  should  be  impressed  on  the  minds 
of  the  people  of  all  countries.  Said  decision  was  written  by  Chief  Jus- 
tice Winslow.  and  from  it  we  quote  as  follows: 

"When  an  eighteenth  century  Constitution  forms  the  charter  of 
liberty  of  a  twentieth  century  government,  must  its  general  provisions  be 
construed  and  interpreted  by  an  eighteenth  century  mind,  surounded  by 
twentieth  century  conditions  and  ideals?  Clearly  not.  This  were  to 
command  the  race  to  halt  in  its  progress,  to  stretch  the  State  upon  a 
veritable  bed  of  procrustes." 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  AMERICAN  FLAG  31 

CHAPTER   VII. 

SOCIALISM  AND  THE  AMERICAN  FLAG 

An  appropriate  summary  of  this  little  pamphlet  could  perhaps  best 
be  made  by  a  short  interpretation  of  the  Stars  and  Stripes. 

In  previous  chapters  we  have  attempted  to  give  an  interpretation  of 
real  Americanism,  and  the  Flag  of  the  United  States  is  emblematic  of 
those  principles  adhered  to  by  the  founders  of  this  government. 

Since  the  Socialists  are  to-day  th-  only  real  defenders  of  those 
principles,  they  likewise  become  the  real  defenders  of  the  flag  that  rep- 
resents those  principles. 

The  capitalist  class  of  the  United  States  do  not  believe  in  a  single 
principle  represented  by  the  American  Flag.  But  on  the  other  hand, 
use  it  to  hide  behind  while  they  destroy  every  principle  for  which  the  Flag 
stands.  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  once  said:  "Patriotism  is  the  last  refuge 
of  a  scoundrel."  Experience  in  the  United  States  in  the  last  few  years 
has  proven  this  statement  to  be  true. 

The  most  intelligent  Socialist,  as  well  as  all  other  intelligent  men 
and  women,  are  not  much  given  to  fetish  worship.  To-day  it  is  not 
the  emblem  of  a  thing  the  people  want,  it  is  the  thing  itself;  not  the 
shadow,  but  the  substance.  The  Socialists  stand  for  everything  repre- 
sented by  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  and  will  not  be  satisfied  until  they  have 
all  those  things,  not  in  theory  merely,  but  in  reality. 

The  blue  field  in  the  American  Flag  stands  for  equality,  the  stars 
in  this  blue  field  stand  for  the  states;  the  equality  of  the  states  and  the 
equality  of  all  the  people  of  all  the  states. 

The  white  in  the  American  Flag  stands  for  the  purity  of  the  purpose 
of  government,  the  purpose  of  government  being  life,  liberty  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness  for  all. 

The  red  in  the  American  Flag  stands  for  brotherhood  and  typifies 
the  blood  shed  by  the  American  Revolutionists  in  their  endeavor  to 
establish  liberty,  equality  and  democracy. 

The  red  Flag  of  Socialism  represents  exactly  the  same  thing  for 
all  the  world  that  the  red  in  the  Stars  and  Stripes  stands  for  to  the 
American  citizen. 

The  red  of  the  Stars  and  Stripes  represents  brotherhood  and  equal- 
ity in  the  United  States;  the  red  flag  of  Socialism  means  that  the  blood 
of  all  men  is  red,  and  represents  the  brotherhood  and  equality  of  the 
people  of  all  the  world. 

The  triumph  of  Socialism  in  the  United  States  can  alone  mak* 
possible  the  realization  of  those  conditions  of  which  the  American  Flag 
is  only  an  emblem. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  S1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


Photomount 

pamphlet 

Binder 

Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc 

Makers 
Stockton,  Calif 

W.W2I.190B 


886380 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


